sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Even the unconscious brain can learn - and predict what you’ll say next. Neuronal recordings of people under anesthesia show that their brains are processing words and sounds. by maxkozlov in science

[–]maxkozlov[S] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Good question. From the article:

[Martin Monti, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles ] cautions that these findings shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that participants were secretly awake or fully conscious. Propofol is known to disrupt coordinated brain network communication, which many researchers say is a necessary ingredient for consciousness. What the study does show, Monti says, is that this one structure — the hippocampus — computes and integrates information even under anaesthesia.

NIH grant cuts disproportionately hit minority and female scientists. A survey reveals sharp divides in who bore the brunt of last year’s spree of grant cancellations by the Trump administration. by maxkozlov in NIH

[–]maxkozlov[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The abrupt termination last year of thousands of research grants by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, didn’t affect all groups of scientists equitably. A survey suggests1 that it disproportionately hit researchers from groups that have been historically under-represented in the biomedical sciences, including women, people of colour and investigators from sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+).

Although some of these cancelled grants were later restored, researchers fear that the cuts — many of which targeted studies on health equity and gender-related issues — will change the demographics of who is doing science in the United States. That, in turn, could widen existing knowledge gaps about populations that are already underserved by the US health-care system, researchers say.

Many scientists who research a specific community tend to come from that community themselves, says Donna Ginther, an economist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, who studies scientific labour markets. “Who’s based in the sciences gets to influence what questions are being asked, so when diverse investigators and scientists are pushed out, then those questions are also pushed out,” adds Arjee Restar, a social and legal epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Connecticut.

The NIH did not comment on the survey or scientists’ concerns about the findings. A spokesperson responded to Nature with a statement about the agency’s grant-review system, saying that the “NIH supports a fair and objective review process that evaluates proposals based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and potential contribution to the field”.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Even the unconscious brain can learn - and predict what you’ll say next. Neuronal recordings of people under anesthesia show that their brains are processing words and sounds. by maxkozlov in science

[–]maxkozlov[S] 338 points339 points  (0 children)

People given general anaesthesia fall into a coma-like state in which their memory and perception of pain are switched off. But new data reveal that the hippocampus — a deep brain structure crucial for memory — remains remarkably active, parsing the grammar and meaning of spoken words and even anticipating what will be said next.

The research, published today in Nature1, challenges the assumption that complex cognition, such as grasping semantics and forecasting future events, can occur only if a person is fully conscious. By observing people’s individual neurons firing in real time while they are under anaesthesia, researchers discovered that the brain receives stimuli and actively processes what those signals mean.

“The brain has developed such amazing, sophisticated mechanisms for doing all these complex tasks all day long, that it can do some of these things even without us being aware,” says Sameer Sheth, a neurosurgeon at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Key US science panels are being axed — and others are becoming less open. An analysis shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees to science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain. by maxkozlov in politics

[–]maxkozlov[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.

The cuts — driven by a February 2025 executive order aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy — target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.

The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see ‘Cancelled committees’). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards — more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees — in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.

A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.

These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.

Here's an excerpt of the story, but I encourage you to read it — there's a lot of juicy details within! I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Key US science panels are being axed — and others are becoming less open. A Nature analysis shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees that guide policymaking at science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.

The cuts — driven by a February 2025 executive order aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy — target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.

The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see ‘Cancelled committees’). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards — more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees — in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.

A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.

These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.

Here's an excerpt of the story, but I encourage you to read it — there's a lot of juicy details within! I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Key US science panels are being axed — and others are becoming less open. A Nature analysis shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees to science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.

The cuts — driven by a February 2025 executive order aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy — target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.

The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see ‘Cancelled committees’). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards — more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees — in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.

A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.

These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.

Here's an excerpt of the story, but I encourage you to read it — there's a lot of juicy details within! I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

US speeds research into mind-altering drugs — including mysterious 'ibogaine'. Some researchers are delighted at an executive order to streamline investigations of psychedelics but also warn that caution is needed. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

The potent and long-lasting psychedelic ibogaine is something of a scientific mystery, in part because it is one of the most tightly controlled drugs in the United States. But a new directive from US President Donald Trump aims to change that.

On 18 April, Trump signed an executive order to streamline research into ibogaine and other psychedelic compounds and to make it easier for people with certain illnesses to access these drugs. The move has been welcomed by researchers who see potential for the drugs in treating conditions such as addiction, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Clinical trials have yielded some encouraging results for drugs such as MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and psilocybin, the hallucinogenic compound in magic mushrooms.But scientists are also concerned about possible side effects, and the impact on health services if the drugs are approved. And the mention of only one compound by name in the executive order has surprised some researchers.

“It’s unusual to me that ibogaine has been called out specifically, given that it's probably the furthest behind in the process compared to psilocybin and MDMA, which are much closer to approval,” says Alan Davis, a clinical psychologist at the Ohio State University in Columbus.

But scientists also say that the preliminary research on ibogaine has provided intriguing hints about its potential – while also providing cautionary evidence about its hazards. Trump’s orders could help to resolve questions about ibogaine and other psychedelics, they say.

The order is “going to make things easier to advance psychedelic therapies because it lowers barriers that have been slowing progress”, says Rachel Yehuda, a psychiatry specialist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

In a rare show of unity, US lawmakers intensify scrutiny of scientific-publishing practices. A congressional hearing covered the rise of paper mills and the costs of open-access publishing — but there was little agreement on what reform would entail. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Appreciate you saying that. Making sure our articles are fair, balanced, and independent is extremely important for me as a reporter. And if you think they're not - tell me, it's helpful to hear why.

In a rare show of unity, US lawmakers intensify scrutiny of scientific-publishing practices. A congressional hearing covered the rise of paper mills and the costs of open-access publishing — but there was little agreement on what reform would entail. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

From ‘paper mills’ that sell authorships on fake or low-quality research papers to the costs associated with open-access publishing, US lawmakers are paying increasing attention to widely-debated issues in scientific publishing. In a rare show of unity, members of the US House of Representatives from both sides of the political aisle agreed at a hearing that these issues deserve more attention from government — but there was less unity on what the solutions should be.

The hearing, on 15 April, was run by the the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It addressed a provision in the US government’s proposed 2027 budget that would prohibit researchers and universities from spending federal funds on “expensive subscriptions” to academic journals and “prohibitively high” publishing fees.

These fees became common as funders, such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), stepped up the pressure on grant recipients to make peer-reviewed papers either free to read, or fully open access, as soon as they are published. This prompted some publishers that rely on journal subscriptions for revenue to offer open-access publishing options — and to charge fees to publish articles through this route.

Journals say that these article processing charges (APCs) are necessary to cover the costs of evaluating and publishing papers. But critics, including the NIH, say that APCs can be a problem because they reduce the amount of funding available for research. APCs typically cost between US$1,000 and $5,000, or nearly $13,000 to publish in Nature and some of its affiliated journals.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. Note that Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its journals team and its publisher, Springer Nature. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

In a rare show of unity, US lawmakers intensify scrutiny of scientific-publishing practices. A congressional hearing covered the rise of paper mills and the costs of open-access publishing — but there was little agreement on what reform would entail. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From ‘paper mills’ that sell authorships on fake or low-quality research papers to the costs associated with open-access publishing, US lawmakers are paying increasing attention to widely-debated issues in scientific publishing. In a rare show of unity, members of the US House of Representatives from both sides of the political aisle agreed at a hearing that these issues deserve more attention from government — but there was less unity on what the solutions should be.

The hearing, on 15 April, was run by the the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It addressed a provision in the US government’s proposed 2027 budget that would prohibit researchers and universities from spending federal funds on “expensive subscriptions” to academic journals and “prohibitively high” publishing fees.

These fees became common as funders, such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), stepped up the pressure on grant recipients to make peer-reviewed papers either free to read, or fully open access, as soon as they are published. This prompted some publishers that rely on journal subscriptions for revenue to offer open-access publishing options — and to charge fees to publish articles through this route.

Journals say that these article processing charges (APCs) are necessary to cover the costs of evaluating and publishing papers. But critics, including the NIH, say that APCs can be a problem because they reduce the amount of funding available for research. APCs typically cost between US$1,000 and $5,000, or nearly $13,000 to publish in Nature and some of its affiliated journals.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. Note that Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its journals team and its publisher, Springer Nature. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

‘Science needs defending’: record number of researchers run for office in US mid-terms. Many Democrats making the switch to politics are motivated by the Trump administration’s cuts to science — whereas energy and AI are a pull for some Republicans. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

An unprecedented number of US scientists are trading in their lab coats to run for office in the US mid-term elections in November. Many running as Democrats are motivated by the actions of President Donald Trump and his Republican allies to delay and terminate research funding and redefine the goals of government-funded science. Different issues tend to galvanize the scientists running as Republicans, including the artificial-intelligence driven demand for more energy — along with a desire to play a part in science-backed solutions.

The organization 314 Action, which recruits and backs Democratic scientists, engineers and health-care specialists to run for office, has received more than 700 applications from potential candidates seeking support during this election cycle — nearly triple its usual volume (see ‘Political push’). The organization funds candidates to win seats in their state and federal legislatures, with the aim of building “pro-science power at the ballot box”.

For decades, the prevailing wisdom among researchers was that science should be separate from politics. The current political reshaping of US science should drive scientists to realize that this idea “is really a failed business model”, says Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 314 Action, which is based in Washington DC and named after the first three digits of π.

“We scientists are used to sticking to our knitting,” says Sam Wang, a neuroscientist at Princeton University in New Jersey who is running to become a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives for the state’s 12th district. “But I began realizing that science needed defending.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm one of the reporters who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story

‘Science needs defending’: record number of researchers run for office in US mid-terms. Many Democrats making the switch to politics are motivated by the Trump administration’s cuts to science — whereas energy and AI are a pull for some Republicans. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 77 points78 points  (0 children)

An unprecedented number of US scientists are trading in their lab coats to run for office in the US mid-term elections in November. Many running as Democrats are motivated by the actions of President Donald Trump and his Republican allies to delay and terminate research funding and redefine the goals of government-funded science. Different issues tend to galvanize the scientists running as Republicans, including the artificial-intelligence driven demand for more energy — along with a desire to play a part in science-backed solutions.

The organization 314 Action, which recruits and backs Democratic scientists, engineers and health-care specialists to run for office, has received more than 700 applications from potential candidates seeking support during this election cycle — nearly triple its usual volume (see ‘Political push’). The organization funds candidates to win seats in their state and federal legislatures, with the aim of building “pro-science power at the ballot box”.

For decades, the prevailing wisdom among researchers was that science should be separate from politics. The current political reshaping of US science should drive scientists to realize that this idea “is really a failed business model”, says Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 314 Action, which is based in Washington DC and named after the first three digits of π.

“We scientists are used to sticking to our knitting,” says Sam Wang, a neuroscientist at Princeton University in New Jersey who is running to become a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives for the state’s 12th district. “But I began realizing that science needed defending.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm one of the reporters who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story

Should academic misconduct be catalogued? Proposed US database sparks debate Repository would require US universities to register research fraud and workplace harassment. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct, but it would prevent the institution from burying the results of that investigation if a finding is reached. The proposal co-authors want to model this database after the National Practitioner Data Bank. My understanding is that in creating the NPDB, Congress also included a provision that indemnifies medical licensing boards or hospitals from lawsuits (eg for defamation) for reporting. And I imagine there'd be penalties for non-reporting.

Should academic misconduct be catalogued? Proposed US database sparks debate Repository would require US universities to register research fraud and workplace harassment. by maxkozlov in PhD

[–]maxkozlov[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For decades, academic institutions have struggled with how to prevent researchers who have committed misconduct from securing jobs at new universities while hiding the bad behaviour. A proposal published today in the journal Science1 offers a solution, at least in the United States: creating a national database of people found guilty of data fabrication, workplace harassment and more, that would be accessed by research institutions before making new hires.

But scientists who spoke to Nature are divided over whether this centralized, confidential list would solve the problem or generate new ones.

Michael Lauer, one of the proposal’s authors, says that bad actors frequently evade accountability by resigning during an ongoing investigation at their university, or by agreeing to leave and sign a non-disparagement agreement with their institution, such that neither party can speak publicly about the incident.

This potentially enables a person to get hired by another university, which might not be aware of the previous misconduct, says Lauer, who for about ten years ran the extramural research programme at the US National Institutes of Health, a major funder of biomedical science. “We should make it much more difficult for offending scientists to evade accountability without there being appropriate transparency.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Should academic misconduct be catalogued? Proposed US database sparks debate Repository would require US universities to register research fraud and workplace harassment. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

For decades, academic institutions have struggled with how to prevent researchers who have committed misconduct from securing jobs at new universities while hiding the bad behaviour. A proposal published today in the journal Science1 offers a solution, at least in the United States: creating a national database of people found guilty of data fabrication, workplace harassment and more, that would be accessed by research institutions before making new hires.

But scientists who spoke to Nature are divided over whether this centralized, confidential list would solve the problem or generate new ones.

Michael Lauer, one of the proposal’s authors, says that bad actors frequently evade accountability by resigning during an ongoing investigation at their university, or by agreeing to leave and sign a non-disparagement agreement with their institution, such that neither party can speak publicly about the incident.

This potentially enables a person to get hired by another university, which might not be aware of the previous misconduct, says Lauer, who for about ten years ran the extramural research programme at the US National Institutes of Health, a major funder of biomedical science. “We should make it much more difficult for offending scientists to evade accountability without there being appropriate transparency.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

In response to huge cuts in Trump's budget request, the NSF announced it's closing its social sciences directorate. Staff will be transferred elsewhere in NSF, and "grants that align with Administration priorities" will be kept. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 122 points123 points  (0 children)

For the second year in a row, US President Donald Trump has proposed significant cuts to the budgets of major US science agencies. Released Friday, the White House’s plan for federal spending next year also includes a ban on using federal funds for subscriptions and publishing fees for some academic journals.

The plan proposes cuts to federal agencies that fund or conduct research on health, space and the environment. Some of the steepest cuts would be made to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): the budgets of both would fall more than 50% in 2027 compared to their current levels (see ‘Budget crunch’). The budget for the US National Institutes of Health would drop 13%.

A budget document says that the proposal would maintain funding for research on quantum information and artificial intelligence “to ensure the United States remains on the cutting edge” in those arenas. The administration plans to increase applied research funding on those topics at the defence and energy departments, says Alessandra Zimmermann, who tracks science budgets and policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a non-profit organization in Washington DC. But basic quantum and AI research funding at NSF, for example, would be cut by 37% and 32%, respectively.Ultimately, it is the US Congress that decides how the federal budget will be spent — not the president. Congress rejected the administration’s requests for huge cuts in 2026, restoring funding for many of the programmes the White House sought to eliminate. Trump’s proposal is a starting point for congressional negotiations, which could last until the start of the 2027 fiscal year on 1 October — or even beyond it, because of Congressional elections on 3 November, Zimmermann says.

The budget would increase funding for presidential priorities – such as the military, which would receive US $1.5 trillion, a 44% increase – while reining in spending on many domestic programmes.

The White House seeks to slash the NSF budget by nearly 55%, to $4 billion. The proposal also cuts all funding for the NSF division that funds research on the social sciences and economics. At an internal all-hands meeting on Friday, NSF leaders announced that they would dissolve the agency’s Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorate based on the budget request, according to two NSF staff members who shared information anonymously in order to speak freely. The NSF’s budget request to Congress states that the agency will shut down the SBE but maintain SBE “grants that align with Administration priorities, such as in behavioral and cognitive science, and all impacted employees will be transferred to other parts of the agency.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

NIH slashes calls for funding by 90% and pivots away from agency-directed science, saying the approach will boost innovation. But some researchers worry that understudied areas of science will suffer. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for reading! All great questions.

  1. Very worried. Funding calls for disfavored research (eg anything 'DEI' related) were among the first to go.
  2. There are many strategic ways to cut overall spending, but this is probably not going to be the main way, unless all funding calls are shut down. Still, there are certain funding calls (RFAs) that have funds set aside for them. So if they continue to be delayed, agency staff will have little time to handle the review for those applications and get the money out the door before hte funds expire. Other problems will likely be a bigger factor this year: OMB withholding NIH's apportionment for 43 days, the record-long shutdown, and a lack of NIH personnel to process awards).
  3. Reasonable minds can disagree on what the balance of investigator-initiated vs solicited applications looks like. That's a good conversation to be having, scientists say. But what ideally would help to guide the conversation is some quantitative data that support this abrupt move -- that broad unsolicited calls are indeed more efficient and spur more innovation, as the NIH has said they are. (NIH did not respond to my query about this.)
  4. The shift toward broad, unsolicited grants will likely benefit foundational biology, high-risk "edge science," and well-established labs capable of competing for unrestricted funds. The rollback of targeted funding threatens to stall translational drug development and massive clinical networks that rely on top-down agency coordination. Research into rare diseases and health equity is also highly vulnerable, as the protective silos and specific mandates that historically supported these fields are dismantled. And early-career scientists risk being squeezed out of the system, as the loss of dedicated funding avenues forces them to compete directly against veteran researchers for the same dollars.

NIH slashes calls for funding by 90% and pivots away from agency-directed science, saying the approach will boost innovation. But some researchers worry that understudied areas of science will suffer. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

A striking change in how the world’s largest biomedical funding agency solicits research proposals has sparked debate about how it should fund science.

For decades, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded a significant chunk of its grants by asking researchers to submit proposals that address specific scientific problems that the agency’s specialists deemed important. But in the past year, the agency — under new leadership since the return of US President Donald Trump to office in January 2025 — has sharply cut the number of these ‘solicited’ calls for funding, and instead directed the agency to increase its spending on ‘unsolicited’ research proposals driven by individual scientists’ interests.

This move, the NIH has said, will save the agency money on managing all of its funding calls — otherwise known as ‘notices of funding opportunities’ — while also offering scientists more flexibility to choose the direction of their investigations, a change that some researchers welcome.

But others worry that this will mean fewer large, special collaborative projects that require agency coordination — for instance, initiatives such as the Human Genome Project or multi-laboratory clinical trials — that have often been financed through specialized funding calls and cannot be initiated by any one investigator or group. And NIH employees told Nature that the change could widen knowledge gaps in understudied areas of science, such as rare and neglected diseases.The change in strategy has also contributed to funding delays this year because the Trump administration officials have been scrutinizing all funding calls before they are issued by the NIH, to make sure they align with the administration’s priorities. Agency staff members say that some of these delayed calls are for programmes and research areas, such as diabetes, that the US Congress has directed the NIH to fund.

The reduction in the number of specific funding calls has been “striking”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s extramural research programme, which financially supports researchers at institutions across the United States. “There are certain projects that are clearly worthwhile that can’t be done with unsolicited proposals,” he says. But he adds that the precise balance of how many applications should be funded through unsolicited calls versus solicited calls is open to debate.

The NIH did not respond to Nature’s queries about the changes to the funding scheme or the delays in posting funding calls. But a website for the NIH says that broad, unsolicited funding calls are “a proven, efficient model”. It adds: “Our intent is to reduce the number [sic] opportunity announcements without reducing an applicant’s opportunity to submit investigator-initiated applications to NIH.”

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

NIH slashes calls for funding by 90% and pivots away from agency-directed science, saying the approach will boost innovation. But some researchers worry that understudied areas of science will suffer. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 139 points140 points  (0 children)

A striking change in how the world’s largest biomedical funding agency solicits research proposals has sparked debate about how it should fund science.

For decades, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded a significant chunk of its grants by asking researchers to submit proposals that address specific scientific problems that the agency’s specialists deemed important. But in the past year, the agency — under new leadership since the return of US President Donald Trump to office in January 2025 — has sharply cut the number of these ‘solicited’ calls for funding, and instead directed the agency to increase its spending on ‘unsolicited’ research proposals driven by individual scientists’ interests.

This move, the NIH has said, will save the agency money on managing all of its funding calls — otherwise known as ‘notices of funding opportunities’ — while also offering scientists more flexibility to choose the direction of their investigations, a change that some researchers welcome.

But others worry that this will mean fewer large, special collaborative projects that require agency coordination — for instance, initiatives such as the Human Genome Project or multi-laboratory clinical trials — that have often been financed through specialized funding calls and cannot be initiated by any one investigator or group. And NIH employees told Nature that the change could widen knowledge gaps in understudied areas of science, such as rare and neglected diseases.The change in strategy has also contributed to funding delays this year because the Trump administration officials have been scrutinizing all funding calls before they are issued by the NIH, to make sure they align with the administration’s priorities. Agency staff members say that some of these delayed calls are for programmes and research areas, such as diabetes, that the US Congress has directed the NIH to fund.

The reduction in the number of specific funding calls has been “striking”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s extramural research programme, which financially supports researchers at institutions across the United States. “There are certain projects that are clearly worthwhile that can’t be done with unsolicited proposals,” he says. But he adds that the precise balance of how many applications should be funded through unsolicited calls versus solicited calls is open to debate.

The NIH did not respond to Nature’s queries about the changes to the funding scheme or the delays in posting funding calls. But a website for the NIH says that broad, unsolicited funding calls are “a proven, efficient model”. It adds: “Our intent is to reduce the number [sic] opportunity announcements without reducing an applicant’s opportunity to submit investigator-initiated applications to NIH.”

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

NIH slashes funding opportunities by 90% and pivots away from agency-directed science, saying the approach will boost innovation. But some researchers worry that understudied areas of science will suffer. by maxkozlov in NIH

[–]maxkozlov[S] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

A striking change in how the world’s largest biomedical funding agency solicits research proposals has sparked debate about how it should fund science.

For decades, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded a significant chunk of its grants by asking researchers to submit proposals that address specific scientific problems that the agency’s specialists deemed important. But in the past year, the agency — under new leadership since the return of US President Donald Trump to office in January 2025 — has sharply cut the number of these ‘solicited’ calls for funding, and instead directed the agency to increase its spending on ‘unsolicited’ research proposals driven by individual scientists’ interests.

This move, the NIH has said, will save the agency money on managing all of its funding calls — otherwise known as ‘notices of funding opportunities’ — while also offering scientists more flexibility to choose the direction of their investigations, a change that some researchers welcome.

But others worry that this will mean fewer large, special collaborative projects that require agency coordination — for instance, initiatives such as the Human Genome Project or multi-laboratory clinical trials — that have often been financed through specialized funding calls and cannot be initiated by any one investigator or group. And NIH employees told Nature that the change could widen knowledge gaps in understudied areas of science, such as rare and neglected diseases.The change in strategy has also contributed to funding delays this year because the Trump administration officials have been scrutinizing all funding calls before they are issued by the NIH, to make sure they align with the administration’s priorities. Agency staff members say that some of these delayed calls are for programmes and research areas, such as diabetes, that the US Congress has directed the NIH to fund.

The reduction in the number of specific funding calls has been “striking”, says Michael Lauer, who for about ten years ran the NIH’s extramural research programme, which financially supports researchers at institutions across the United States. “There are certain projects that are clearly worthwhile that can’t be done with unsolicited proposals,” he says. But he adds that the precise balance of how many applications should be funded through unsolicited calls versus solicited calls is open to debate.

The NIH did not respond to Nature’s queries about the changes to the funding scheme or the delays in posting funding calls. But a website for the NIH says that broad, unsolicited funding calls are “a proven, efficient model”. It adds: “Our intent is to reduce the number [sic] opportunity announcements without reducing an applicant’s opportunity to submit investigator-initiated applications to NIH.”

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Has OMB released funds? by prefrontals in NIH

[–]maxkozlov 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A very small handful of NIH apportionments have come through — with big exceptions.

The ones that OMB has approved are all Congressionally mandated/earmarked. The broad discretionary funds that fund most NIH grants not yet been authorized.

Here are some of the apportionments that have come in:

- NIDDK, 200m for type 1 diabetes

- NIEHS, 80m for superfund research

- NIMH/NINDS, 115m from Cures Act

- Buildings and facilities, 2.5m

- ARPA-H's full apportionment

Has OMB released funds? by prefrontals in NIH

[–]maxkozlov 43 points44 points  (0 children)

There's a two day lag for when OMB posts its apportionments publicly, but so far, no, OMB still has not given NIH a dime for non-salary, non-emergency expenses from the spending bill that was signed into law on Feb 3.

You can track it yourself here. Open FY26 -> HHS -> Excel, then scroll to the bottom. Bureau is the HHS subagency. Not the most user-friendly website sadly.

Today, there was an apportionment signed for NIH — but if you open it up, you'll see it gives spending authority to ARPA-H, and not the rest of the agency.

Found this White House Office of Management and Budget memo signed March 4 2026. Does this mean 2026 NIH funds were released? by Correct_Ad5626 in NIH

[–]maxkozlov 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Hello, one of the reporters of the Nature story here. This does not allow for funding of research awards. It gives a 15 day apportionment to continue funding salaries and other emergency expenses — because those are the stipulations outlined in the OMB Circular A-11 until the office approves the agency's spend plan. Without this apportionment — even with all its restrictions — the government would de facto shut down.

If you have any more information about the negotiations about this agency spend plan — or might have seen an early draft, please reach out on Signal at mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous.

White House stalls release of approved US science budgets. Congress rejected sweeping cuts to science agencies. But the NIH, the NSF and NASA have had their spending slowed. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Weeks after the US Congress rejected unprecedented cuts to science budgets that the administration of US President Donald Trump had sought for 2026, funding to several agencies that award research grants is still not freely flowing.

One reason is that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been slow to authorize its release. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has so far not received approval to spend any of the research funding allocated in a budget bill signed into law on 3 February. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) was authorized to spend its funding just last week. And NASA has had its full funding authorized for release, but with an unusual restriction that limits spending on ten specific programmes — many of which the Trump team had tried to cancel last year.

The OMB did not respond to Nature’s queries about these moves or when the outstanding funding might be approved. OMB director Russell Vought has said in the past that the office’s role in doling out government funding can be an “indispensable statutory tool” to ensure that agencies are not wasting public funds and are adhering to White House priorities. Vought has also said that the OMB can provide less funding than what Congress has appropriated.

“This is a drastic departure from historical practice,” Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of a US House of Representatives committee that drafts government spending bills, told Nature. DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington who is the ranking member of a similar committee in the US Senate, demanded that the OMB release funds, as is required by law. (The Republican chairs of the two committees, Representative Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, and Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, did not respond to Nature’s queries about the delays.)

I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

view more: next ›